My comment was responding to another comment (which referred to heads of state). I wasn’t responding to the original post. You then responded to my comment which was a sub comment to the post that I guess you really wanted to respond to…Try to keep up.

Perfection is the enemy of the good. I don’t know why you are obsessed with child rape…

Ok, historically some political leaders felt that raping all brides before their wedding night was a great honor bestowed upon the family. Egyptian royalty had slaves, family members and pets murdered or buried alive with them when they died.

Human history is full of it’s leaders doing shitty and horrendous things… We can either sit here and microanalyze whatever country or set of leaders we want to single out or just recognize that historically everybody in power was a piece of shit, and look for ways to do better and make our leaders do better.

Does anyone here think that the United States and the world is better off with Donald Trump in power as opposed to Kamala Harris? If your answer to that question is " but Kamala supported Israel too hard"… Then my original comment about perfection and goodness is for you.

Instead of actually working towards something better, let’s just spend our time arguing over things we can’t change. /S

Perfection is the enemy of good.

You have a very simplistic view of cause and effect. No one thing is ever the cause of anything. Everything is a result of multiple factors. Just because something isn’t the sole cause of another thing doesn’t mean you ignore it. Only shills would think otherwise when the issue of capitalism is involved.

I agree with most of your individual points… But your thesis relies on a false assumption.

Capitalism is the current problem for 95% of the world… Just like monarchies were a problem for that particular country. Just because many political and economic systems throughout history reflect an aspect of human nature to control and bequeath that control to their offspring, doesn’t take capitalism off the hook. Hell, if that were the case, we could blame everything on the evolutionary drive to be sexually successful, and not place the blame on anyone or anything else. That’s what those at the top would love the rest of us to believe.

I’m just responding to your comment. If you were only talking about encryption, then maybe word your comment more clearly… Especially if you want to cast aspersions towards other about staying on topic.

Only if you look at it in the most general, limited, pov. Are they the same people on corporate greed? Not all, but mostly yes. Are they the same people on encryption? Yes. Are they the same on human rights? Absolutely fucking not. If the only thing important for you is encryption, voting isn’t going to change the government’s policy decisions. However, if things other than encryption and corporate greed are important, then voting for a Republican is voting against your interests. History is filled with people who can’t see past their own fucking biases and look out for the greater interest… So you have a lot of historical company.

Handing out homemade candy in one of my upper level college courses.

“I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.”

-Clarence Darrow

I only see it as a big fuck you to the eventual democratic candidate. He splits the “progressive” side of the vote and gets the Republican elected.

“Bastardize” is a term of art, essentially meaning having no legal father at birth. The whole reason the state cares about preventing bastards is because they typically require more state services than non-bastardized children.

This is common. In Tennessee, a judge won’t divorce you if pregnant because it would effectively bastardize the child. By statute, there is a presumption that husband is dad if wife is impregnated during marriage. You can’t divorce without a parenting plan. So you have to wait until birth to rebut the parentage presumption. I had a client try to get around it by requesting a test of the amniotic fluid, but the judge wouldn’t allow it because of the potential harm to the child.

It can be both

Your response doesn’t logically respond to my comment. It attempts to reframe the argument by setting up a “strawman,” and shows that you fail to understand (or choosing to ignore because it doesn’t support your new reframed argument) the difference between civil and criminal law in the United States.

It can’t be a crime unless there is a criminal statute that applies. See if you can find one thst applies.

It’s not a crime.

You just keep shifting your argument to create some sort of sympathy. I guess. No one says a rich person isn’t a victim. The point is is being a victim as a wealthy and influential woman like Taylor is a lot different than being a victim in a working class context. If you disagree with that, then you’re either being intellectually dishonest or living in a dream world.

Even the law agrees. It’s a lot harder as a celebrity to win a defamation lawsuit than it is being a normal person. You typically have to show actual malice. Frankly, that’s the legal standard that would probably apply to any lawsuit involving the deep fakes anyway.

That’s not their point and you know it. Get your bad faith debating tactics out of here.

She isn’t living “every woman’s nightmare” because a woman without the wealth and influence Taylor has might actually suffer significant consequences. For Taylor, it’s just a weird Tuesday. For an average small town lady, it might mean loss of a job, loss of mate, estrangement from family and friends… That’s a nightmare.